SANCTUS AND
THE BOOK OF REVELATION
Some Anthropological and Theological
Insights on the Communal and Historical Dimension of Christian Liturgy
(published in L. Padovese [ed.], Atti del VII Simposio di Efeso su S. Giovani Apostolo, Roma 1999, pp.143-156)
One
of the most imaginative insights of modern cultural anthropologists is their
conviction that ritual, and the liturgical life in general, is a form of
communication, a "performative" kind of speech. According to this
understanding, rituals are instrumental in creating the essential categories of
human thought.[1]
They communicate the fundamental beliefs and values of a community, outlining in
this way its "world view" and its "ethos".[2]
Mary Douglas has demonstrated that rituals do not only transmit culture, but
they also "create a reality which would be nothing without them. It is not
too much to say that ritual is more to society than words are to thought. For it
is very possible to know something and then find words for it. But it is
impossible to have social relations without symbolic acts".[3]
Even the texts, as A. Destro and M. Pesce have pointed out, “are not just
writing, literature, or communication, but above and beyond all this, especially
in the religious field, part and instrument of a performance”. [4]
This conclusion is in fact in accord with the affirmation of modern theologians,
who like the late Fr. George Florovsky rightly declare that "christianity
is a liturgical tradition. The Church is first of all a worshipping community.
Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second. The lex orandi
has a privileged
priority in the life of the christian Church. The lex credendi depends on the devotional experience and vision of the Church,
more precisely on the authentic (i.e. liturgical) identity of the Church."[5]
In
this line of thought, liturgy does not only externalize, but also modifies
experience.[6]
This double orientation is expressed in the certain general functions the
liturgy has for a group. Some of them contribute to the expression, maintenance
and transmission of the values and feelings of a given social and/or religious
system, some others serve as guardians of these values and feelings,
protecting them from doubts and rejections, while others contribute to
the intesification of solidarity between the participants, thus creating a sense
of communion.
Keeping
in mind all these, i.e. that rituals and liturgy in general create a reality, a
"world view" and the "ethos" of a community, it may be
proved very fruitful to try to think of the Liturgy of the Church in terms of
the insights cultural anthropology has offered, among others, to scholars of
religion.
1.
Anthropological Insights on Liturgy. There
are two major understandings of the Liturgy. According to the first one, Liturgy
can be treated as a private act,
functioning as a means to meet some particular religious needs: i.e. both the
need of the community to exercise its power and supervision on the members, and
the need of the individual for personal "sanctification". We could
label this aspect of the liturgical act as juridical. According to the
second one, the Liturgy functions as a means for the upbuilding of the religious
community, which is no longer viewed in institutional terms or as a cultic
organization, but as a communion (λοιξφξέα)
and as a way of living. We will call this second understanding communal.
a.
The juridical understanding of Liturgy presupposes a religious system, which in
terms of ecclesiology treats the Church as an institution with a rigid
hierarchical structure, and an authoritative code of doctrinal beliefs and
ethical principles. This entails a number of objectified obligations (cultic,
doctrinal and moral) which all the members within the religious system have to
fulfill. Consequently, this understanding of Liturgy treats all the liturgical
rites within the system (Sacraments, sacramentalia, rites of various kinds etc.)
as the necessary means for the individual to acquire the divine grace and
finally salvation. The Liturgy of the Church in this respect is the necessary
means for personal expiation, justification and psychological relaxation. Within
this framework, sin (ναςτέα) becomes an
individual guilt, a "case" that is legally predefined and which
demands expiation and redemption through the infliction based on the appropriate
canon, and of course through a mediator. As a result, all liturgical acts and
the Sacraments in particular, are reduced to cultic acts. Moreover, God
is no longer the loving Father who shows compassion to sinners, but the sadist
father, as Sigmund Freud noted, who demands ta number of expiatory cultic acts.
It
is worth noting that this cultic understanding of Liturgy encourages and
in effect promotes a sharp distinction between the various segments of the
religious society (clergy and laity, monastic and secular, pneumatic/spiritual (πνευματικός/γέροντας)
and ordinary/subordinate (–ποταλτιλήχ),
thus underlining the dimensions of super- and sub-ordination within the ritual,
and contributing to the maintenance of the social structure not only within the
religious community itself, but also by extension within the wider social life.[7]
b.
At the other end, the communal understanding of Liturgy presupposes an
entirely different situation. After all God' s involvement in history through
Jesus Christ was planned in order that all human beings “may have life, and
have it abundantly” (John 10:10). In fact, christianity with all its rites
“does not aim primarily at the propagation or transmission of intellectual
covictions, doctrines, moral commands etc., but at the transmission of the life
of communion that exists in God".[8]
It
is worth noting that the communal character of Liturgy
emerges in marginality (liminality), at the edges of structure, and from beneath
structure, in inferiority.[9]
This observation undergirds the principle lain above: the communal understanding
of Liturgy presupposes an anti-structural kind of ecclesiology. In a theological
level this means priority of communion over structure; yet in a practical level
it does not mean the abolition of every kind of structure in the community. As
Victor Turner insightfully claimed, there is a dialectic between structure and
communion (or communitas): "In rites de passage,
(wo)men are released from structure into communitas only to return to
structure revitalized by their experience of communitas".[10]
2. Sanctus and the Eucharistic Liturgy. In liturgics the tension between
“private” and “communal” understanding of christian liturgy is in a way
related to the insertion, at some historical point, of the Sanctus (the trisagion
angelic hymn) in the eucharistic anaphora, without any direct connection to what
precedes or to what follows, thus basically separating it into two parts.[11]
In fact it is not so much the insertion of the Sanctus as such, as the
misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the relation between heavenly and
earthly liturgy. The development of the eucharistic anaphora and the addition of
the Sanctus has caught the imagination and attracted the interest of
scholars ever since the 17th century, when a critical study of liturgy has begun,
called by A.C.Couratin "a kind of precious stone of liturgical theology".[12]
According to G. Dix[13]
the Sanctus is a decorative ornamental addition, which was added in the
4th century AD to the eucharistic prayers without any connection to the its
rhythm and reasoning; and this took place throughout christianity, though at
different points of the respective prayers of the various churches.
The hymn comes from the Book of Isaiah and runs as follows:
".
. . I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train
filled the temple. Above him stood
the Seraphim... And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth
is full of his glory." (Is 6:1-3)
In
christian literature it was first used by the author of the Apocalypse in his
vision of the heavenly worship:
"Holy,
holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is to come!”
(Rev.
4:8)[14]
Some
scholars have argued that the Sanctus in Rev. 4:8b constitutes the most
ancient christian liturgical text.[15]
Nevertheless, in neither its Judaic nor its christian use, is the Sanctus
connected in an obvious way to the eucharistic prayers; nor was it ever used
in combination with them, although at some point in the history of Judaism it
penetrated the worship of the Synagogue.[16]
The first evidence of the use of the Sanctus in the context of the
eucharistic prayers is found in Jerusalem and Egypt, and a little later in
Antioch. At that time the Synagogue was no longer a danger for the Church.[17]
Nowadays, one of the most uncontested conclusions in liturgical scholarship is
that the Sanctus and its introduction had been used for the first time in
Alexandria around the mid-third century AD[18].
From there it might have spread to the other churches, since there is no
evidence of its earlier use in the liturgy[19].
We should be reminded that the Sanctus is found neither in the
fragmentary liturgical references of Justin nor in the more extensive
eucharistic anaphora of Hippolytus. Needless to say, the research on the
evolution of the Divine Liturgy constitutes an extremely interesting area, whose
significance largely transcends the narrow limits of conventional liturgics[20]
and touches the heart of the ecclesiological and overall theological problem; in
other words its importance is related to the self-consciousness of the christian
community.
The connection between the evolution of the eucharistic anaphora to
privatization and de-historization of christian liturgy, and consequently moving
away from the communal understanding of christian worship, is expressed in
remarks such as the following: "According to evidence from the anaphora of
Hippolytus, the sacrifice offered to the earthly sanctuary referred to the
heavenly sanctuary . . . was quite natural for the faithful on earth to be eager
to be united to the angelic realm in heavens."[21]
E.C.Ratcliff, an old-days-liturgist [22]
advanced the hypothesis that the linking of the eucharistic prayer to the Sanctus
was a result of the reasoning that, since the servants of God in heavens are
angels[23],
who "have no rest day and night, saying holy, holy, holy, is Lord God
the Almighty. . .” (Rev 4:8), then during the Eucharist the christian
community basically is lifted up in order to participate in the heavenly liturgy.[24]
In other words, the ultimate goal of the eucharistic liturgy of the
christian Church was not meant to transform the Church into what she really is -
i.e. a people of God, a body
of Christ, a communion of the Holy Spirit to witness in this world
"the wonderful acts of God, who called them from the darkness into his
own marvelous light” (I Pe
2:9), or even a projection of the salvific work of the Triune God to the whole
of creation - but, instead, her elevation beyond historical reality and her
unification with the supra mundane world of the angels, with the aim to meet
private needs of the individual believer.
3. Sanctus and Revelation. Therefore, Sanctus and the book of
Revelation are very important in defining the character of christian worship. In
any case, the book of Revelation possibly constitutes the most important
christian text for a proper understanding of Liturgy, and no doubt a decisive
point of reference for the problem of the addition of the Sanctus in the
eucharistic anaphora.
Either we take the Apocalypse to be the generic cause for the addition of the Sanctus[25]
or we consent to the oldest theory, according to which its author reproduces in
his work the liturgical act of the early Church,[26]
- even without insisting that the addition itself originates in the first
century AD.; or, finally, if we endorse the more reliable theory that the
Apocalypse is a determining factor for later liturgical self-conscience of the
Church;[27]
the bottom line in all these cases is that the Apocalypse is the key to
uncover the real meaning of Christian liturgy; in fact its connection to history
and its relation to the communal or private aspect of the Church.
a.
One
of the prevailing features of the Apocalypse, both in form and in essence, is
undoubtedly the liturgical. Not
only the first (1:3) and the last (22:6) chapters evidently imply a liturgical
setting; it is also the fact that the experience of the seer/prophet takes place
"on the Lord's day" (1:1); it is the baptismal formula (1:5-6);
it is also the concluding prayer "Come Lord Jesus" (22:20) and
the blessing of the final verse (22:21); it is the numerous hymns, especially
from ch. 4 onwards (4:8f-11; 5:9-10, etc.); the direct and indirect references
to the eucharistic anaphoras (2:7; 2:24; 2:17, 3:20, 7:16ff; 11:11; 19:9; 21:6;
22:1-10ff; the climax being the scene of the heavenly worship in ch. 4;(see also
5:9; 7:2-14; 12:11; 14:10ff; 16:6-19; 17:2); the doxologies (1:6; 5:13; 7:12 etc.),
to mention just the most prominent cases.
According to T.F.Torrance the Apocalypse is at once the most liturgical and the
most eschatological book of the New Testament.
Using language and imagery borrowed from the Old Testament and
enlightened by the presence of the Holy Spirit, the seer/prophet circumscribes
ontologically the history of the Church and deontologically her leitourgia
in space and time (worship); while the Gospels describe the way "the
Word took flesh," the Apocalypse constitutes an extension of
christology in time and history. As
in the Old Testament, the liturgy revolves around the event of the Exodus, and
the eschatological salvation was anticipated as a new "Exodus" with
the help of the new redeemer and through a new testament, so the Apocalypse, in
exactly the same way, describes this same dynamic liturgy, this time revolving
around the slaughtered Lamb.[28]
The context in which the Sanctus is used for the first time ever in
Christian literature is Apoc ch. 4 and 5, where the seer/prophet describes his
vision of the heavenly liturgy.[29]
According to J. Giblet, in this vision John presents the splendor of the throne
of God while offering a theological reflection on the theme of heavenly liturgy.
The symbols and images he uses reflect those used by the Old Testament
prophets, when they describe the grandeur and glory of God: the Theophany at
Sinai and the place " where God stood" (Ex 24:9ff); the
description of those surrounding God (Dan 7:14); the six-winged Seraphim in the
vision of Isaiah (6:2), and the living beings, a common feature of all the
apocalyptic texts ever since Ezekiel's time (1:4ff).[30]
Taking for granted that the 24 presbyters represent the Church,[31]
the living beings the rest of the animated creation, the various elements (precious
stones, golden crowns, lightenings and thunders, torches, the sea) the inanimate
nature, and the Seraphim the angelic powers, in other words the whole of
creation, there should be no doubt about
the cosmic character of the heavenly liturgy in Apocalypse, and by extension
of Christian worship in general.
b.
One
really wonders why such a theologically most advanced reflection, stemming from
the New Testament itself, has made so little impact - not to say it has been
completely neglected - during the
formation of Christian worship. To answer this question one has to briefly
review the history of the interpretation of the book of Revelation.
Only then, can one understand the reason why
the most "liturgical" book
of the New Testament has been virtually excluded from the "Liturgy
of the Church". The main
debate in the ancient Church evolved around whether the Apocalypse should be
interpreted literally or allegorically.[32]
Although up to Origen's time the Church Fathers of the second century
were unanimously inclined towards the literary interpretation of the Apocalypse,
interpreting the famous passage of 20:1-6 as a prophecy concerning the earthly
kingdom of Christ, which would follow His Second Coming and would last for a
thousand years,[33]
under the influence of this great Alexandrian thinker, historical interpretation
gave its place to the so-called spiritual or allegorical one.[34]
Origen refuted the literary interpretation of the Apocalypse, and argued
that the prophecies about the End should be interpreted allegorically, because
an anticipation of an earthly kingdom is nothing but a surrender to human
desires and lusts!.[35]
Thus, when Augustine[36]
brought this problematic in the West, although he attempted some kind of an
eschatological synthesis (that is a compromise between millenarianism and the
allegorical view)[37]
the allegorical interpretation of the Apocalypse dominated the entire Christian
exegesis. Consequently, the hope
for a new world, and the anticipation of the eminent kingdom of Christ, remained
concealed,[38]
up until very recently with few exceptions both in the East and in the West.[39]
Thus, the symbols and imagery of the Apocalypse were seen as metaphysical
and ethical categories of another, mostly undefined, reality.
The real historical and political dimension penetrating this unique piece
of literature, from the beginning to its very end, have
only recently been reaffirmed.
c.
In
order, however, to grasp the profound meaning of the book it is absolutely
necessary to give an answer to the question of the literary genre
as well as to the theological character
of the book, i.e. whether it is to be essentially considered as a
prophetic or apocalyptic piece of literature.[40]
To this end it would be necessary to trace back the development of Jewish
literature from prophecy to apocalyptic, through a study of the historical
events of Israel - beginning with the renewal of the prophetic spirit during the
time of Jeremiah and the Deuteronomic reformation of Josiah (640-609 BC.), and
going through the emergence of theocracy in Ezekiel's time (a typical example of
a transition from a prophet to an apocalyptic [587-539]) to the almost complete
abolition of prophecy and its substitution by sophiology, and finally to the
composition of the book of Daniel and the other later Jewish apocalyptic
writings of the first century BC.[41]
This approach will clearly show us that the last book of the New
Testament is a prophetic book - with certain, of course, apocalyptic
elements - and not an apocalyptic
one.[42]
d.
If
we were to accept the prophetic character of the book of Revelation, it would
help us understand better its author's perception of the liturgy.
Amongst the various typical expressions and terms of the Old Testament
the author of the Apocalypse - following the rest of the New Testament writers,
and most particularli the authors of Hebrews and I Peter - chooses the
terminology of worship and prophecy. Obviously
his preferential approach to sin is in terms of repentance (ch. 2-3) and
also of purification. Beginning
with the first verses, a doxology is addressed to Jesus Christ "who
cleansed[43]
us from our sins in his blood" (1:5); the Church is called a "royal
priesthood" (1:6); (but also "and he made us a kingdom ,
priests to his God and Father" ; cf also 5:10); for the innumerable
crowd of the faithful, "who are robed in white garments" (7:13),
are said to have "washed
their garments and whitened them in the lamb's blood" (7:14).[44]
Without, therefore, dealing with worship in the critical manner the
Prophets did,[45]
the seer/prophet of the Apocalypse gives liturgy a new dimension, which reminds
us the political atmosphere of the prophetic literature. In this way, he overcomes the purely cultic and ritualistic
preoccupations of the Old Testament priestly tradition.
In other words, in the Apocalypse the Levitical and mediatory priesthood
of the Old Testament[46]
is not simply overpassed; it is even contrasted.
e. If
the historical character, as well as the purely prophetic background of the
Apocalypse is accepted, the next step is to move to the structure of the
book. In his brilliant study, L.
Thompson maintains that morphologically the Apocalypse uses two types of visions:
"dramatic narratives" and "heavenly liturgies."
The first are used as literary forms through which the seer/prophet
proleptically projects eschatological realities before the description of the
new world in the last two chapters unfold in seven septets,[47]
with bountiful skill. Typical in
almost all septets is the prolonging of the last narrative in order that all the
elements the author wished to incorporate in his book are included, without
mutating his literary septic scheme.
However, what is even more important though is the close connection - in terms
of essence and form alike - between "heavenly liturgies" and "dramatic
eschatological narratives," in other words, between liturgy and history.[48]
The heavenly liturgy of the fourth chapter, in particular, in which the
Sanctus is to be found (4:8b), is for the seer/prophet of the Apocalypse, as S.
Agourides characteristically puts it, "the reality of the world beneath
what is manifest. It is the predominance of God's truth and of the righteousness
and love of the lamb. . . So the purpose of the heavenly liturgy is to point to
the insofar invisible yet true and authentic meaning of history, as opposed to
the falsification and lies that seem to dominate its visible course. . . It is
precisely with the "eschaton," that the world and history outlive
their real life and orientation. The
transition from one period of the world to the other is presented as extremely
painful."[49]
This tragic transition symbolizes the terrible events that follow the form of
successive septets (seals 6:1ff; trumpets 8:1ff; visions/signs 11:15ff; bowls/plagues
15:5ff; plagues/heavenly voices 17:1ff), all of them apparently bringing to the
reader's mind the Seven plagues of Pharaoh before Exodus.[50]
Henceforth, everything which is described in the preceding to the
final solution of the drama chapters , namely, the vision of the "new
heavens" and "new earth" (Rev 21:1ff) are neither signs of
revenge nor frustration nor terror and intimidation but, quite the opposite: a
message of victory, of hope, of salvation.
The right, therefore, understanding of the terrible eschatological narratives of
the Apocalypse is impossible without linking them to the liturgical pieces of
the book. At the same time, however
- and this is of utmost importance to our subject - the purpose of the heavenly
liturgy and in extension the real meaning of christian worship, are
incomprehensible if not directly connected with history, since "for John
liturgy, prayer, God, heaven and all the unspeakable and terrifying things
happening down here on earth are not unrelated to each other; they rather form a
unity, they are one thing."[51]
In addition to the close relation between history and heavenly liturgy, the
historical and cosmic perspective of the liturgical element in the book of the
Apocalypse is certified by the terminology used in some
hymns of a quasi-eucharistic-anaphoral kind, forerunners of all christian
prayers of the anaphora. The
thanksgiving offered by the 24 presbyters to God "for he created all”
(4:11 see also the thanksgiving of presbyters in 11:7ff) and to Christ "for
he redeemed them in God through his blood. . . and made them a kingdom and
priests” (5:9-10), constitute an indirect reference to the scheme later on
found in the anaphoral references of Justin and Hippolytus.[52]
We should remind ourselves, at this point, that, the Gnostics generally
denied the value of history, namely that God the Father created the world and
the Son became perfect man and really died on the cross.
For that reason, their prayers do not resemble at all the terminology of
the Apocalypse, as well as of all the christian anaphoras after Justin.[53]
Finally , the historical projections of the heavenly liturgy are verified by the
use of a series of terms[54]
especially chosen for that purpose such as "the Almighty" (παντοκράτωρ
1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7-14;
19:6-15; 21:22) and "worthy"
(άξιος 4:11, 5:2-9; 12:4), the well-known "acclamation"
at the enthronement of the Roman emperors.
These terms basically denote and reveal through symbols the struggle
between the worship of God and the "lamb," on the one hand, and the
beast on the other, the Church and her head, Christ, the slaughtered lamb, and
the Roman authority and emperor, who during the kingship of Domitianus was
worshipped as dominus et deus. Consequently,
the meaning of worship in the Apocalypse is the declaration of the dominion of
God and not the Emperor or, in other words, of the kingdom of God, whereas the
worship of the beast is an opposition to that kingdom and thus its rejection.
Finally, typical is the reference at the final vision (21:1ff) not only to
"a new heaven" but, in accordance with the undoubtedly historical
prophecy of Isaiah (66:17), to a "new earth."
4. Conclusion. If any conclusion
is to be drawn from the above analysis this is an affirmation of the
historical orientation and the communal character of the christian liturgy. For
if the addition of the Sanctus is to be related in any way with the Apocalypse,
and if the meaning of the heavenly liturgy in the Apocalypse has indeed a cosmic,
communal and historical and not purely transendent and supra mundane character,
then the profound meaning of the really strange addition of the Sanctus
would not denote an alienation of the life of the Church[55]
(i.e. her liturgical praxis) from history and community, but quite the contrary,
the direct relation of worship to the communal, historical and social reality.[56]
[1]E.Durkheim,
The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (transl. by J.W.Swain, New
York: Free Press, 1965, reprint), p. 22.
[2]P.L.Berger
and Th.Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge (New York: Doubleday, 1966). C.Geertz, The
Interpretation of Cultures. Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books,
1973), pp. 126-141.
[3]M.Douglas,
Purity and Danger. An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo
(London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1966), p. 62.
[4]A.Destro
- M.Pesce, “Anthropological Reading of Early Christian Texts”. Sccording
to them “a text is the product of a human activity which is at the same
level of all other cultural manifestations”.
[5]G.Florovsky,
"The Elements of Liturgy: An Orthodox View," Ecumenism 1, A
Doctrinal Approach, vol. XIII in the Collected Works, p. 86; also
in C.Patelos (ed.), The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement,
Geneva WCC Press 1978, 172-182, p.172.
[6]M.Douglas,
Purity and Danger, p. 64.
[7]Unesco’s
Dictionary of the Social Sciences (Gould
and W.L.Kolb eds.) classifies the liturgical behaviour into three distinct
categoties: a. Rites of passage, which help the participant to
accomplish a status change; b. Rites of deference, which acknowledge
the superordination, the subordination and the friendship preserving thus
the existing social structure; c. Rites of intensification, being
held during periods of crisis, in order to increase the solidarity of the
group and decrease the tension that exists, counterbalancing in this way the
crisis. ( vol. 3 of Greek transl. Athens, 1972, p. 967; cf. Arnold van
Gennep, Rites de Passage, Paris: Nourry, 1909). According to the
above analysis, we may place this understanding of the Liturgy of Church,
and especially its sacraments, in the category of the “Rites of Deference”.
[8]I.Bria
(ed.), Go Forth in Peace. Orthodox Perspectives on Mission, Geneva:
WCC Press Mission series 1985, p. 3.
[9]Ibid,
p. 128.
[10]V.Turner,
The Ritual Process. Structure and Anti-Structure (Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press, 1969), p. 129.
[11]A.C.Couratin,
"Liturgy," in The Pelican Guide to Modern Theology, vol. 2,
Historical Theology, 1969, pp. 131-240, p. 193ff.
[12]A.C.Couratin,
"Liturgy," p. 155.
[13]G.Dix,
The Shape of Liturgy, 19822
p. 537ff.
[14]See
J.J.O'Rourke, "The Hymns of the Apocalypse," CBQ 30 (1968)
pp. 399-409, who after subjecting the text of the Apocalypse to a form-critical
analysis came to the conclusion that sections 1:4-5:8b; 4:8b (i.e. the Sanctus);
7:12, 15-17; 11;15, 17-18; and 19:5-8 constitute preexisting hymnic material,
which the author of the book reworked from his christological perspective.
[15]L.Mowry,
"Revelation IV-V and Early Christian Liturgical Usage," JBL
71 (1952) pp. 75-84. According
to J.J.O'Rourke, "The Hymns...," pp. 399-409, this view goes
beyond the existing evidence.
[16]B.D.Spinks,
"The Jewish Sources of the Sanctus,"
Heythrop Journal 21 (1980)
p. 168ff. According to
P.Trempelas, Origins and Character of Christian Worship, 1962, (in
Greek), its use in the Synagogue worship before the second century AD. is
uncertain (p. 180).
[17]But
see A.Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology, ch. 2.
Trempelas also denies the Jewish influence (Origins, p. 57, n.
120 "We accept that the Sanctus is a very old part of the anaphora and
thus do not think the Jewish influence possible, since John in his
description of the heavenly worship presented it as the model of Christian
worship and in this sense he included the Sanctus in his Apocalypse."
This view is related, or even derives from the mistaken idea of this
prominent Greek theologian in modern history that "the Anaphora per
se is totally original and free from all influences of the ordo
of the "chaburah", ibid., p. 67.
[18]
G.Kretschmar, Studien zum früchristlichen Trinitätstheologie, 1956.
More in B.D.Spinks, The Sanctus in the Eucharistic Prayer,
1992, pp. 5ff. Spinks himself, however, in his detailed study on the use of
the Sanctus in judaio-Christian liturgy, argues for the Syriac origin
of the insertion of the Sanctus in the Christian anaphora. R.Taft, “The
Interpolation of the Sanctus into the Anaphora: When and Where? A Review of
the Dossier: Part II,” OCP 58 (1992)
rightly insists that there
is “no reason to challenge” the Egyptian origin.
[19]J.H.Strawley,
The Early History of Liturgy, 19492,
p. 54; P. Rodopoulos, The Sacramentary of Serapion, 1967, p. 78; G.Dix,
The Shape, p. 165 and passim.; idem, "Primitive Consecration
Prayers," Theology
37 (1938) 261ff, where he
claims that the route the insertion of the Sanctus followed was from
Alexandria to Egypt and from there to the rest of Christianity; see also the
important study of W.E.Frere, The Anaphora or Great Eucharistic Prayer,
1938; see also Ch.S.Tziogas, "The Trisagion Hymn," Theological
Symposium in honor of Professor P. K. Chrestou, 1967, (in Greek), pp.
275-287.
[20]For
this issue see the introduction to the book of A.Schmemann, Introduction
to Liturgical Theology, p. 19ff.
[21]P.Trempelas,
Archai, p. 180.
[22]E.C.Ratcliff,
"The Sanctus and the Pattern of the Early Anaphora," JEH 1 (1950) pp. 29ff and 125ff.
[23]In
reality, they are the four living beings which may be identified with the
angelic powers on the basis of the description "each one of them
having six wings" (Rev. 4:8a) that clearly comes from the
description of the Seraphim in Is 6:2.
[24]Taking
Ratcliff's argument a step further A.C.Couratin, "The Sacrifice of
Praise," Theology
58 (1955) maintained that the
connection makes, sense since the eucharistic cup clearly symbolizes the
"new" testament (cf. "this is my blood of the new
testament"), while the "old" testament, according to the
Exodus narrative, makes also explicit reference to the ascending of
the representatives of Israel to the mountain of God's presence and
lawgiving, where they "ate and drunk" (Ex. 24:11).
Therefore, the linking the Sanctus to the eucharistic prayer aimed at the
lifting up of the Christian community and its immediate presentation before
God.
[25]Ibid.,
p. 6, n. 20, a suggestion, however that
contradicts the early eucharistic witness in christian literature.
[26]According
to G.Dix, The Shape, pp. 28-29, on the basis of Rom 12:4-6, the
primitive liturgy was a collective action of thanksgiving to God the Father,
by the Christ's living Body. The
order of the Eucharist is more or less known.
We have no direct witness to the date of its adoption; however, Dix
maintained that it was established long before the end of the first century
AD; not only because the liturgical praxis which follows is in agreement
about it, but mainly because its order is clearly reflected to the symbolism
of the heavenly "gathering" of the triumphant Church, the real
gathering of whom all earthly things are but symbols and types; the same
symbolism is found in the visions of the Apocalypse , most probably written
c. 93 AD. In this book
everything revolves around the heavenly altar, in front of which stood the
crowds of the faithful, whose number was "myriads of myriads and
thousands of thousands" (5:11).
Serving angels appear everywhere.
The 24 presbyters have their thrones in the form of a semi-circle
around the sparkling throne of God and the Lamb, in the same way that
presbyters at earthly altars sat around the tablinum, the white
throne of the bishop. "It
is possible" Dix concludes, "that the book's symbolism was
influenced by the dominant, since the first century AD, liturgical praxis of
the Church and not vise versa, since this structure was traditionally
predominant in the churches (i.e. of Asia Minor) that challenged the divine
inspiration and canonicity of the book of Revelation whose authority and
authenticity was challenged even in the third century AD."
In addition, O. Cullmann, Early Christian Worship, 1953, p. 7,
maintains that "the writer of the Apocalypse views the whole drama of
the last days in the context of primitive Christian worship". . . and
that, "beginning with the original greeting in v. 14 and up to the
closing prayer "come Lord Jesus" in v. 22:20 and the blessing of
the final verse, the book of Revelation is full of implications on
liturgical uses of the first community."
Even if we consider the suggestion as purely hypothetical, it is at
least sure that the writer of the book expresses a view about worship.
See also G. Delling, "Zum Gottesdienstlichen Still der Johannes-Apocalypse"
NT 3 (1959) pp. 107-137.
Some scholars (e.g. D.L.Barr, "The Apocalypse of John as Oral
Enactment," Interpretation 40 [1986] 243-256) have taken these
views to the extreme arguing that the Apocalypse functions within the
context of early Christian worship, which culminates in the Eucharist.
K. P. Joerns (Das hymnische Evangelium, 1971) rejects the
hypothesis that there is an apparent liturgical structure in the book of
Revelation. See also M. H.
Shepherd, The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse, 1960; and (Metropolitan)
N. Anagnostou, The Apocalypse, 1971 [in Greek]).
[27]P.
Bratsiotis, The Apocalypse of Apostle John, 1950, (in Greek) holds
that it is more probable that, "early Christian worship and the
Apocalypse of John mutually influenced each other" (p. 50).
[28]T.F.Torrance,
"Liturgie et Apocalypse," Verbum Caro 11 (1957) pp. 28-40.
[29]According
to P.T.Achtemeier, "Revelation 5:1-14,"
Interpretation 40 (1986) pp. 383-388 the culmination of the
drama in the Apocalypse is to be found in this very scene.
A second culmination in the scene with the vision of the "new
heaven" and the "new earth" of the two last chapters of the
book (21:1ff), which in fact forms the solution of the drama, is nothing but
the fulfillment of what the prophet has announced in chs 4 and 5.
[30]J.
Giblet, "De visione Templi coelestis in Apoc. IV: I-II,"
CollMech 43 (1958) . 593-97.
[31]Whether
we accept the view that the 24 presbyters represent the 24 Jewish clans (see
S.Agouridis, The Apocalypse, pp. 13, 82); or that "they stand
for the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles; the Old Israel and
the new Israel" (more on that in my essay EIKΏN and EKKΛHΣIA
in the Apocalypse", pp. 431ff).
[32]On
this issue see the study of A.Y.Collins, "Reading the Book of
Revelation in the Twentieth Century,"
Interpretation 40 (1968)
229-242.
[33]See
amongst others the views of Papias (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,
3:39), Justin (Dial. Tryph. 81), Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 5:30ff),
Tertullian (Ad Marc. 3:25).
[34]See
S.Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 1964, p. 19ff.
[35]Origen,
De principii, 2:11-2:5.
[36]De
Civitatae Dei, 20:7-13.
[37]See
A.Y.Collins, "Reading the Book of Revelation," p. 229ff.
[38]Its
biblical eschatological perception was saved only by the ancient eastern
liturgical tradition, a fact that the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann made a
great effort to underline in his writings.
[39]See
the studies of A. Argyriou, Les Exegeses greques de l'Apocalypse a l'epoque
turque (1453-1821), 1982; "Greek exegetical works on the Apocalypse
during the Tourkokratia," EEΘΣΘ 24 (1979) (in
Greek), pp. 357-380 and his recent presentation at the Sixth Synaxis of
Orthodox Biblical Theologians, whose topic was Apocalypse (Cyprus 1991);
also the already mentioned study of Collins (n 30) on the East and the West
respectively.
[40]See
the important study by D.S.Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish
Apocalyptic, 1960.
[41]See
Carroll Stuhlmueller, "Post-exilic Period: Spirit, Apocalyptic," Jerome
I, pp. 337-343, with an excellent description of this evolution.
[42]In
order to understand the character of the Apocalypse a comparison is needed
not only with prophecy but also with classical apocalyptic; since the second
is considered to be an evolution of the first.
While, then, the prophets were men of action through their dynamic
preaching, the apocalyptics were men of the written word and transmitted
their message carefully and under cover.
Apocalypse retains both features but the action is prevalent since
its writer was exiled in Patmos (1:9).
While the prophets were personally involved in the politics of their
time, the apocalyptics devoted themselves to a kind of cosmic mission.
The main feature of the Apocalypse is the confrontation between the
Church and Roman authorities. The
message of the prophets was critical of certain events, whereas the
apocalyptics, especially Daniel, developed a kind of religious hermeneutics
of universal history. Apocalypse, no doubt, attempts the second task, without
ceasing, though, to refer, even if covered, to specific events of a
definitely political character (see V. Stogiannos, Apocalypse and Politics,
1985 (in Greek). The prophets
played a leading part in the domination of God over his elect people, Israel,
whereas the apocalyptics envisioned the universal domination of JHWΕ.
The Apocalypse describes the second process but for the elect people
of God, the Church, the New Israel. Essential
to the understanding of apocalyptic literature is the unshakable belief that
the world can be transformed only due to a direct intervention of God.
The prophet of the Apocalypse, on the contrary, counts also on the
blood of the martyrs (for more see our study "Eικών
and Eκκλησία in the Apocalypse," GOTR
38 (1993) pp. 103-117).
Finally, the prophets spoke boldly against the temple and religious
authorities and their word was scarcely misunderstood as opposite to the
apocalyptics who spoke in visions and symbolic terms and were usually
misinterpreted. This is,
probably, the only element the Apocalypse holds in common with the rest of
the works of the apocalyptic writers, even though some scholars have
recently maintained that the views of the writer on priesthood were those of
general priesthood exclusively (i.e. E. S. Fiorenza, Priester für Gott,
1971; and Apocalyptic and "Gnosis in the Book of Revelation," JBL
92 (1973) pp. 565-581).
[43]Either
we read luvsanti, or louvsanti in v.. 1:5
[44]See
the very enlightening treatment of the issue by E. G. Selwyn, The First
Epistle of St. Peter, 1946, p. 285ff.
[45]See
also the eucharistic excerpts from the synoptic tradition "I want mercy
and not sacrifice" (Mat. 9:13; 12:7 from Os 6:6).
According to T. F. Torrance (Liturgie et Apocalypse, p. 31ff)
the meaning of liturgy in the Apocalypse is defined by its alienation from
the Old Testament worship. Whereas
the second is strongly marked by the coming of a new destructive "aeon",
in the Apocalypse, and in the New Testament in general it is marked by the
coincidence and identification of the present with the future "aeon."
[46]In
regard to the notion of the priesthood as to that of ecclesiology (see our
study Image and Church in Apocalypse, p. 420ff) the Apocalypse is the
culmination of the process which started with the early texts of the New
Testament and reached the post-apostolic Ignatian eucharistic-centered
writings on the role of the bishop, preceded by I Peter and Hebrews.
While I Peter stresses the "priesthood of the Church" and
Hebrews "the priesthood of Christ' (see E. G. Selwyn, The First
Epistle of St. Peter, p. 294), the Apocalypse shifts the stress on
"prophetic priesthood." Selwyn,
in his book already mentioned juxtaposes I Peter to the Apocalypse in a
characteristic manner.
[47]See
J. W. Bowman, The Drama of the Book of Revelation, 1955; also S.
Agouridis, The Apocalypse, p. 29ff.
[48]L.
Thompson, "Cult and Eschatology in the Apocalypse of John," JR
4 (1969) pp. 330-350. Thompson
rightly believes that the heavenly liturgy is in absolute harmony with the
earthly liturgy and the dramatic events of history unravel in terms of the
human tragedy.
[49]S.
Agouridis, The Apocalypse, pp. 41-42.
This is the meaning of the last days in Orthodox liturgy.
More on the issue in A. Schmemann, Introduction, p. 79ff.
[50]As
R. H Charles (The Revelation of St. John, 1920, p. 1xiiff) put it,
the writer of the Apocalypse was thinking continuously in Hebrew categories
of thought but wrote in Greek, a language that he did not master with ease.
According to H. B. Swete (Apocalypse of St. John, 19072,
to the 404 verses of the book, 278 include obvious references from the Old
Testament, mostly freely adapted from the original Hebrew and not from the
translation of O'. See also A.
Lancelotti, "L'Antico Testamento nell' Apocalisse," in Rivista
Biblica 14 (1966) pp. 369-84.
[51]S.
Agouridis, The Apocalypse, p. 83.
"The heavenly liturgy is not detachment and withdrawal from
earthly things but the interpretation of the earthly things from the angle
of God and their redemption from powers hostile to God.
This constitutes the real meaning of Christian worship in general"
(p. 52).
[52]G.
A. Michell, Landmarks in Liturgy, 1961, pp. 68-69.
[53]An
example is given by the eucharistic prayers of the Apocryphal Acts of John
(84-86 and 109-110) and Acts of Thomas (44-50 and 133); see M. R. James, The
Apocryphal New Testament, 1924, pp. 250, 268, 388, 422.
[54]Very
correctly S. Agourides (The Apocalypse, p. 29) maintains that, "the
writer of the Apocalypse talks to us about the salvation offered by God not
in another world but in our world transformed; not outside history and
individually, but in the context of true communion with other people, which
is the end and at once the surpassing of history."
[55]In
the Byzantine sources, and St. John Chrysostom in particular, a smoother
flow of the eucharist is attempted through a scheme of antithesis: "although
you are being escorted by thousands of angels...."; however, this
phenomenon occurs only with time and especially following the purpose and
complex developments related to the ritual preceeding the anaphora, during
late Byzantine period. R.
Taft's contribution to the topic is classical (ref. 10); see also H. J.
Schulz, The Byzantine Liturgy 1986.
Even the Cherubic Hymn introducing the liturgy came to signify the
setting aside of all earthly cares: either the "now all earthly care"
(pasan nun viotiken) was transformed to "all the earthly care"
(pasan ten viotiken), (see J. Foundoulis, The Divine Liturgies,
1985, (in Greek) p. 231, or the hymn, being the evolution of "Now the
powers" (Nun ai Dunameis) clearly manifests the setting aside of
earthly care in order for the eucharistic gathering to receive in this
world, Christ "the king of all."
[56]
In contemporary Orthodox theology this idea is known as "the Liturgy
after the Liturgy"; (more in Ion Bria - P. Vassiliadis, Orthodox
Christian Witness, 1989, (in Greek) p. 65ff, also p. 35f) and it is
underlined by the cosmic dimension of liturgical theology.